User talk:Northamerica1000

Northamerica1000 is presently taking a semi-break from Wikipedia.

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This user prefers to communicate
on-wiki, rather than by email.

This week's article for improvement (week 34, 2018)

Guacamole is an avocado-based dip, spread, or salad first developed by the Aztecs in what is now Mexico. Hello, Northamerica1000. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Guacamole Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Anna Anka • Club drug Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

A beer on me

		A beer on me!
		For your amazing work on articles. I'm drinking a nice Vegas yard of Guinness right now and would like to share in the fun. Drinks on me. AmericanAir88 (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: Thanks for the brew. I remember you mentioning somewhere that you were going to Sin City, so have fun while you're there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Northamerica1000 My pleasure, Thank you! Nothing beats Wikipedia in the Bellagio! AmericanAir88 (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you go on elsewhere, don't forget to tip your stripper. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Stasis (fiction) - query

Hi,

I just had a question about the AfD on Stasis (fiction) you closed. I can see why, as it was, it was closed as NC. However I would have thought it seemed a good target for at least one relisting. If only via my own !vote discussion hadn't completely concluded, and so I was wondering if there was a specific reason behind it?

Cheers,

Nosebagbear (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Nosebagbear: Relatively speaking, the deletion discussion received enough input from enough users for the NC result to be determined. Nowadays, seven participants in a deletion discussion is actually a fair amount, compared to when AfD had an overall greater degree of average input, say around four or five years ago, although lulls also occur randomly. In my opinion, the discussion had enough participation for the result to be determined, and the discussion had also become a bit of a stalemate regarding whether or not the article is a fork. Also, at this point, discussion on the article's talk page may be more functional, as the deletion discussion became to be a matter of redirection, possibly merging, or article retention, rather than deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Cheers for the answer - I personally find it easier to retain discussion in one spot in most cases where there is already an ongoing discussion then shift it, risking fragmenting discussion, but I realise that is both a viewpoint that be disagreed with generally and in degree. Thank you for the explanation Nosebagbear (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I agree with the notion of keeping discussions in one general area. I'm not entirely against reopening the discussion and relisting it, although I think the discussion has become a bit moot. To reopen, I would have to ask what your motives would be for relisting. Since you opined for the article to be retained, if I were to relist it per this discussion, users could potentially criticize the matter as a keep !voter trying to gain further keep !votes. Not to come across to you as "over the top" regarding hypotheticals, but just saying. Ultimately, as an admin, I have to keep WP:RELIST in mind, part of the Wikipedia:Deletion process page, where it states, "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." Another idea is that people with an interest in the topic at this point may be more likely to continue discourse on the article talk page, although I have no way of predicting whether or not this will actually occur. Further talk page discussion may not occur at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi - this wasn't a request to specifically relist this AfD, though I realise I should have made that clear in my original post, I just do quite a few NACs, so I like to pay attention to the more complicated ones done to pick up the nuances. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, that's cool too. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for Page Restoration

Hi,

I would like to bring to your kind notice the recent deletion of "Locus.sh" page from Wikipedia. I respect with great sensibilities the honor of Wikipedia and the team. I am also a true believer in the honesty and capabilities of the WikiPedia Team here. My reason to highlight the decision to reconsider the deletion of the page in question is the reason for deletion in itself is extremely weak. Quoting the reason given in 'as many words' below:

"Weak Delete: Two articles spaced two years apart in the Economic Times seem to point to two significant coverage; however they both seem to be PR pieces. The other sources don't seem to establish notability either." And there were 2 votes for deletion.

I want to highlight that this particular reason which is being highlighted is highly subjective(Locus.sh has been in operations since 2015 and has received over 200 media validations/articles since it started). The two articles mentioned here from Economic times are simply a factual representation of data with no hidden intentions to show significance. In your own analysis and validation process, you called it a "Weak delete"....When we found about the deletion request which indeed is a huge brand embarrassment for a global company like Locus, the team here fully trusting the Wikipedia Team, we didn't make any attempts to get votes, in fact we tried to understand the reason for deletion and we found that it was extremely weak. We did what was the right thing to do which is to trust "Wikiperdia's judgement". Please help us and consider the request for Page Restoration.

Once again I would like to highlight our faith in the transparency and impartiality of Wikipedia administration.

Regards Pranay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranay 0709 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hello Pranay 0709: Consensus at the deletion discussion for the Locus.sh article was for deletion, and as an impartial closing administrator I followed Wikipedia procedures accordingly and precisely in my assessments. I have thought this over for a bit of time before responding here, and here is what I feel is the most equitable outcome at this time:

• I have restored the article for the time being and relisted the deletion discussion, adding a comment in the relist notice notifying Wikipedians about your request here. In this manner, the deletion discussion may run for another seven days, allowing you time to contribute to the discussion and provide your rationales for the article to be retained on English Wikipedia. I state that the discussion may run for another seven days because I have no control over what other administrators may do after the article restoration and discussion relisting.
• I am performing the above actions in part per the manner in which none of the arguments in the deletion discussion stated whether or not opinions regarding notability were based upon overall sources available for the company, or if said opinions were only based upon the state of sourcing in the article at the time. The former is what true notability is based upon. See WP:NEXIST for more information. Consensus was for deletion, but all three of the !votes following the nomination, as they are worded, come across as potentially being only based upon the sources within the article at the time, rather than upon a consideration of all available sources, such as those available in various internet searches.
• Since it's clear that you're a representative of the company, I strongly recommend that you first declare this when contributing to the deletion discussion or in editing the article. For the latter, you can state this on the article's talk page. For more information, see the Conflict of interest behavioral guideline page. Such statement of affiliation with the company is crucial, so people will know this from the start. Conversely, if you were to omit this, some users could hypothetically be dismissive your arguments from the start. Furthermore, any and all company personnel and affiliates should also make such declarations from the start, to prevent misunderstandings and for transparency reasons.
• If you are not already familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, check out WP:CORP, which covers companies and organizations, and particularly WP:CORPDEPTH on the page. WP:GNG is also another basic notability guideline that you should be aware of if you're not already. WP:CORP was recently made more strict in terms of what is considered an independent source to determine notability, just so you know this from the start.
• After posting this message, I will message all participants in the deletion discussion on their talk pages to make them aware of the discussion that has transpired here, and to make them aware of the article's restoration and reopening of the deletion discussion.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Reply Hi. Thank you so much for the kind consideration for providing us an opportunity to explain our situation. I would like to introduce myself as Pranay from the brand team of Locus who manages brand persona globally. The listing down of Locus has had serious repercussions on Locus's brand value. This is to bring to your notice that Locus has no promotional intentions here. Once listed on Wikipedia was truly a celebration for our worldwide team, investors, suppliers, and customers. We do believe that this seat is to be earned and hence I will be providing all the facts to reconsider deletion. I will be responding to all the comments by the voters. Once again a sincere thanks for investing the time which is so valuable. Pranay 0709 (talk)